BROWARD COUNTY: Jury Reviews Charges Of Neglect, Abuse In Foster Care---------------------------------------------------------------------For the second time in three years, a grand jury is considering chargesof abuse and neglect in Broward County's foster care system.

A team of lawyers who settled a federal lawsuit against the Department ofChildren & Families last year say their evidence indicates the system hasdeteriorated.

"We're extremely concerned that Broward County's foster care system mayeven be getting worse," said Howard Talenfeld, a Fort Lauderdale lawyerand board member of the Youth Law Center, which filed the suit.

The problems persist despite pledges of improvement by the governor andFlorida's child-welfare chief.

The county's child-welfare system, designed to provide havens to about1,500 children who have been abused or neglected by their families, cameunder grand jury scrutiny three years ago.

In a November 1998 report, the grand jury found Broward's foster childrenin danger and the problems "so pervasive that they threaten to collapsethe entire system."

Children were being sexually assaulted by other children in crowdedfoster homes. On any given day, as many as 100 foster children had runaway and were missing. A critical shortage of foster homes forced somechildren to sleep on couches or spend the night in a caseworker's office.

A month before the report came out, Talenfeld and the Youth Law Centerfiled its class-action suit on behalf of all the county's fosterchildren.

In a settlement last May, the lawyers agreed to drop the suit in returnfor the state adopting a series of reforms. Almost a year later, theattorneys say they see virtually no progress.

"Nothing has changed in any substantial way to make the system better,"said Michael Dale, a Nova Southeastern University law professor who isworking on the case. "There is an extraordinary lack of capacity in theagency to look after these children."

The lawyers are considering reopening the case and asking a judge toforce the state to make improvements, Dale said.

Agency Secretary Kathleen Kearney, who as a former Broward juvenile courtjudge was one of the system's biggest critics, promised to make changesafter she was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush in December 1998.

Her first month on the job, Kearney announced an emergency plan forBroward that included tracking incidents of abuse and neglect in fostercare and creating a system to identify and search for runaways.

Kearney could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

"They have plan after plan after plan," Dale said. "They don't act onthem, and what they have doesn't always make sense."

Bush, appearing personally at a hearing on the federal lawsuit in 1999,told a judge he was "committed to transforming our child welfare system."

"The governor is still committed to improving the foster care system,"said Bush spokeswoman Lisa Gates. "It is our understanding that DCF iscontinuing to perform under the settlement agreement to improve fostercare."

In the past three years, the county has gone through five administratorsat DCF.

Carroll could not provide statistics to show improvements in Broward.

Kearney recently brought in a new management team after Phyllis Scottresigned to spend more time with her family. The new team is siftingthrough records to cull an accurate picture of the state of foster carein the county, Carroll said.

Talenfeld, who has been monitoring the system as part of the settlement,said foster children continue to suffer sexual abuse and physical harm.Almost 100 children have run away and are missing, he said.

"They can't find them," Dale said. "They don't know where they are."

While the state has made strides in reducing crowding in foster homes,some Broward shelters are rundown and over capacity, with childrensleeping on couches, Dale said.

A grand jury began meeting last month to examine the system, saidprosecutor John Countryman. The 1998 grand jury requested a follow-up toreview progress.

But jurors also will hear about continuing problems, such as abuse,Countryman said. Talenfeld already appeared before the grand jury, andDale was scheduled to testify on May 3.

"One of the allegations is nobody is safe in Broward County (fostercare)," Countryman said. "Some of those concerns will be addressed. We'recovering a lot of things."

The jury is scheduled to meet through October but could extend thesession.

"I think it might take a long time," Countryman said. (Sun-Sentinel (FortLauderdale, FL), May 3, 2001)

CALIFORNIA POWER: Generators Under Fire; Penalties and Agreement Debated------------------------------------------------------------------------Power generators vilified by California lawmakers and regulators want toend the raft of pending lawsuits and investigations accusing them ofcreating and profiting from the state's energy crisis.

''You don't need to threaten people with putting them in jail in order toget them to negotiate,'' said Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of theIndependent Energy Producers, which represents the independentgenerators, on Wednesday.

Duke Energy released details of its offer to Gov. Gray Davis to cut itsenergy charges retroactively and into the future in exchange for ''promptsuspension of State investigations, lowering of rhetoric and stay ofState litigation.''

The disclosure came two days after Williams Cos. agreed to refund $8million to settle a federal investigation into alleged improper chargesfor electricity.

It came the same day Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante filed suit against fivegenerators. Bustamante is sponsoring legislation that would allowcorporate officers to be jailed and part of a company's assets seized ifthe company was convicted of price gouging.

''FERC, the investigation by the attorney general, the work of otherinvestigatory groups, outside litigation all of that combined is bringingpressure on the industry and we're starting to see cracks in thatveneer,'' said state Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove, chair of the SenateSelect Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation of the WholesaleEnergy Market.

Independent energy analyst David Huard, a partner at Manatt, Phelps &Phillips in Los Angeles, said generators must face the possibility ofcriminal as well as civil penalties.

''It's a very expensive and damaging process. It's going to take atoll,'' Huard said. ''The fact that they're facing this on so many levelshas got to be putting pressure on them.''

Legislators and legal experts questioned whether any state agreementcould end all the suits and investigations pending against Duke.

However, Duke presented six options, including a ''prepackaged'' suit andsettlement by the attorney general that would include a simultaneoussettlement of other class-action suits. The attorney general's settlementcould be broad enough to preclude antitrust actions; Davis could use hisemergency powers to bar other suits; or the Legislature settle claims,Duke suggested.

''If we could get beyond the lawsuits and the accusations we are preparedto invest in considerably more generating facilities in the state,'' saidDuke spokeswoman Cathy Roche. ''We also need assurance that we're notgoing to continue to be subjected to accusations that quite honestly haveno substance behind them. ... As long as you have this type of litigationand threats to take over the assets of the companies it's very difficultto commit to adding new plants.''

Smutny-Jones and former FERC attorney Stephen Angle, whose firmrepresents generators including Duke on non-California issues, saidcriminal charges had little chance for what they call predictablefree-market behavior by generators taking advantage of California'selectricity shortage.

Davis aides said they immediately gave Duke's office to Lockyer's officeand never negotiated with Duke.

"The legislative history does not indicate that Congress was especiallyworried about brokerage companies that have purposefully availedthemselves of business opportunities in jurisdictions with onerous laws,"Central District Judge Carlos R. Moreno wrote.

Plaintiffs represent a proposed class of investors who used CharlesSchwab's Web site to buy and sell stocks, options and other securities.They allege that:

-- Despite claiming to charge a commission of $29.95 for the first 1,000shares bought and $.03 for any additional shares, Charles Schwab charged$.03 for all shares resulting in a $.05 overcharge per transaction;

-- The broker automatically entered short-sell positions in plaintiffs'accounts rather than immediately selling their stock as requested;

-- The broker maintained its trading price records so as to incorrectlyprice call options; and

-- Defendant erroneously calculated accounts' option requirements.

After removing the case to federal court, Charles Schwab moved fordismissal. The plaintiffs asked the court to remand the proceedings tothe state level.

The court addressed whether the Securities Litigation Uniform StandardsAct was intended to preempt state-law claims such as these. It noted thatunder the statute, a removing party must show: (1) the class action iscovered under the legislation; (2) the complaint is based on state-lawclaims; (3) there has been a purchase of sale of a "covered security";and (4) the alleged misfeasance was committed "in connection with" thepurchase of sale of the security. Only the last requirement was disputedby the parties.

Citing Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 404U.S. 6 (1971), the court said the U.S. Supreme Court has held thatSection 10(b) of the Exchange Act should be read flexibly.Misrepresenting the risks associated with the purchase of securities ortheir value satisfies the "in connection with" requirement, the courtsaid. However, the act's legislative history shows that its purpose is toprotect the interests of shareholders and employees of public companiesfrom meritless "strike" suits, the court added. Judge Moreno found that a"wholesale adoption" of Section 10(b)'s "in connection with" requirementwas unwarranted. "The Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant's fraudinduced them to invest in particular securities. Rather, the plaintiffscontend that defendant's fraud induced them to select defendant as theirbroker rather than some other brokerage firm. It would appear thatplaintiff's suit lies more in the realm of consumer protection thatsecurities litigation," the court concluded.

CVS PHARMACY: MA Sp Ct Upholds Cert in Case over Customer Privacy-----------------------------------------------------------------The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision,affirmed on May 1 a ruling by Judge Raymond J. Brassard of the SuperiorCourt granting class action status to a case brought by pharmaceuticalcustomers of CVS Pharmacy against the pharmacy chain, a direct mailmarketing firm and four pharmaceutical manufacturers. The suit allegedbreach of privacy and other claims arising out of a marketing scheme byCVS and the pharmaceutical manufacturers. In the Superior Court, JudgeBrassard granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, allowingthe case to proceed as a class action. Three of the pharmaceuticalmanufacturers appealed the decision, arguing that the case should nothave been granted class action status. In a 20-page opinion, authored byJustice Francis X. Spina, the SJC affirmed Judge Brassard's ruling.

The marketing scheme targeted by the suit involved letters sent by CVS topharmaceutical customers who had particular medical conditions based ontheir pharmaceutical histories. The mailings, which were funded by thepharmaceutical manufacturers, were directed at promoting sales ofproducts manufactured by those companies and sold through CVS. Thepharmaceutical companies also provided CVS with the criteria from whichthe recipients for each mailing were selected.

The plaintiffs in the suit allege that their confidential medicalinformation was improperly disclosed and misappropriated for commercialgain by CVS, the pharmaceutical companies and the direct mail marketingcompany.

In the opinion, Justice Spina described the case as "a classicillustration" of a consumer class action suit.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the firms of Gilman andPastor, LLP of Saugus, Massachusetts and Finkelstein and Krinsk of SanDiego, California.

Contact: David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 781-231-7850,Dpastor692@aol.com; or Jeffrey Krinsk of Finkelstein and Krinsk,877-493-5366, Fk@class-action-law.com

DAIMLERCHRYLSER AG: Twiggs, Abrams Files NC Suit over Recycled Lemons---------------------------------------------------------------------Raleigh, N.C.'s Twiggs, Abrams, Strickland & Rabenau has filed a classaction against DaimlerChrysler Corp. in a state court in Raleigh chargingthe auto company with deceptive trade practices in the reselling ofreacquired Chrysler vehicles. The lawsuit claims that Chrysler is notdisclosing to the new buyers that they are buying recycled lemons, saidplaintiffs' attorney Douglas Abrams of Twiggs, Abrams. The otherplaintiffs' attorneys representing the class are Howard Twiggs of Twiggs,Abrams, H. Clifford Kirkhart of Cary, N.C., and Richard H. Middleton Jr.of the Savannah, Ga., office of Suggs, Kelly & Middleton and KennethSuggs and Brad Simpson of the Columbia, S.C., office. The size of theputative class has not yet been determined, Mr. Abrams said, but Chryslerhas released records indicating "that over a four year period, 45,000lemons were resold." Chrysler has not yet filed a response, he added.Williams v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 01CVS3390 (Wake Co., N.C., Super.Ct). (The National Law Journal, April 30, 2001)

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Accused of Concealing Safety Defects in N.C. Suit---------------------------------------------------------------------DaimlerChrysler AG faces a growing list of lawsuits over vans, trucks andsport utility vehicles made since 1984 without a device preventing thevehicles from shifting out of park until the brake pedal is depressed.

The plaintiffs claim DaimlerChrysler compromised safety by manufacturingthe vehicles without the so-called brake shift interlock system, whichthey claim was an industry standard used in almost all vehicles,including the Ford Windstar, since the early 1990s.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of thousands of NorthCarolina owners of the company's vehicles and makes claims similar toother lawsuits filed recently in at least six other states.

Plaintiffs in the North Carolina lawsuit hope to represent owners ofChrysler Town and Country, Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager minivansmanufactured for the model years 1984 through 2000; Dodge Ram and Dakotapickups built from 1990 through 2000; and all Dodge Durango sport-utilityvehicles built since 1995.

Jim Seifter, an Atlanta lawyer representing claims againstDaimlerChrysler by plaintiffs in Georgia, said he also representsplaintiffs from Guilford County, N.C., and from South Carolina, Iowa,Nebraska and West Virginia. He has also talked with attorneysrepresenting disgruntled DaimlerChrysler vehicle owners in New York, NewJersey and Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in several of the cases seek a court order requiring thevehicles to be retrofitted and also seek damages of up to $75,000 perclass member.

A DaimlerChrysler spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuits'allegations, saying the company has not been served with many of them.But spokeswoman Elaine Lutz said none of the cases alleges injuries.

"We've seen these types of suits before," she said. "These are simplylawyer-driven suits in search of generating large fees."

Brake shift interlock mechanisms are not required by the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration, although DaimlerChrysler integrated thefeature into its vehicles with new-model years beginning in themid-1990s, she said.

"That was based on market conditions at the time, not because NHTSAregulates it," Lutz said. "It's something like many other features we'veadded."

Lutz wouldn't comment on whether the company is considering measures toaddress safety concerns over vehicles without the device. (The DetroitNews, May 3, 2001)

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks torecover damages. Any member of the class may move the Court to be namedlead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move theCourt no later than July 2, 2001.

The action, Morris Kassin v. Digimarc Corp., et al., is pending in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 PearlStreet, New York, New York), Docket No. 01- CV-3792 (JGK) and has beenassigned to the Hon. John G. Koeltl, U.S. District Judge. The complaintalleges that Digimarc Corporation, Bruce Davis, Digimarc's President andChief Executive Officer, Geoffrey Rhoads, its founder and ChiefTechnology officer, E. K. Ranjit, its Chief Financial Officer andSecretary, Philip J. Monego, Sr., its Chairman, and Brian J. Grossi andJohn Taysom, two of its directors, violated the federal securities lawsby issuing and selling Digimarc common stock pursuant to the December 2,1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that one of the leadunderwriters in the offering had solicited and received excessive andundisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, leadunderwriter BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Digimarc sharesto customers at the IPO price of $20.00 per share. To receive theallocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at$20.00, defendantBancBoston Robertson Stephens's brokerage customers had to agree topurchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higherprices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases atprogressively higher prices as the price of Digimarc stock rocketedupward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to(and did) drive Digimarc's share price up to artificially high levels.This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both theunderwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buyingDigimarc stock at the $20.00 IPO price and then selling it later for aprofit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $88.00during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO,the complaint alleges, BancBoston Robertson Stephens required itscustomers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secretcommissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculatedafter the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from hisor her IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Actof 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and theRegistration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatoryapproval for the Digimarc offering contained material misstatementsregarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPOtransaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions and"laddering" scheme discussed above.

HOOVER CAPITAL: Money manager Charged of Stealing from Clients--------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission said it has charged formerBoston-based money manager Stevin R. Hoover and his firm, Hoover CapitalManagement Inc., with stealing more than $475,000 from clients. In acivil fraud action filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, the SECalleged that Hoover and his firm misappropriated the money through forgedchecks, unauthorized transfers and overbilling of management fees. Hooveroperated his firm in Boston from 1995 to 1999, when the alleged fraudoccurred. In 1998, 1999 and 2000, Worth magazine featured Hoover in itsannual article describing selected money managers' stock picks. (TheAtlanta Journal and Constitution, May 3, 2001)

INMATES LITIGATION: $150M Suit Accuses Ontario PsychiatricFacility-------------------------------------------------------------------Criminallyinsane men at an Ontario psychiatric facility were stripped naked andkept together in a tiny room -- their only food a liquid they drewthrough straws inserted through holes in the wall, alleges a proposed$150-million class-action lawsuit.

A second inmate at Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, Oak Ridgedivision, was added to the unproven claim filed in Superior Court whichalleges patients were used as "human guinea pigs" in CIA-typemind-control programs from 1965-1979.

The lawsuit claims inmates were given "mind-altering" drugs and subjectedto psychological and physical torture in an effort to reconstruct theirpersonalities.

Instead, they say experiments weren't based on proven science, and theprovince turned a blind eye.

"We're alleging there were a series of mind-control experiments conductedat the Oak Ridge facility," said Egglestone and Joanisse's lawyer, JoelRochon. "The allegation is these mind-control programs mirrored the typesinitiated by the CIA during the Cold War. It's frightening to think thesesorts of experiments were allegedly permitted to take place in a countrysuch as Canada." (The Ottawa Sun, May 3, 2001)

Iomega chairman David Dunn, president and CEO Bruce Albertson and otherexecutives of the Roy-based producer of data storage hardware andsoftware were grilled by shareholders on a number of subjects.

Albertson, in a phone interview later in the day, said he thinksshareholders' concerns are fair, but it seems to him the underlyingconcern is Iomega's stagnant stock price, which has traded, for the mostpart, between $ 3 and $ 4 per share for months.

"If our stock was trading at $ 5, $ 6, $ 7 a share or more, no one wouldask those questions," he said. "I think those questions come out of thestock not moving."

Iomega (NYSE: IOM) closed down 4 cents per share at $ 3.31 on Wednesday,despite the fact that the company showed a profit of more than $ 169million in 2000 -- the first profitable year Iomega had reported since1997 -- and a strong price to earnings ratio of 7.2.

He's been told some analysts are waiting for a turnaround in Iomega'srevenue, which was $ 1.3 billion in 2000 -- down from $ 1.5 billion in1999 and $ 1.7 billion in 1998 and 1997.

"I had an analyst tell me about a month ago, 'When you show us top-linegrowth, we're going to recommend the stock.' And I said, 'By the time weshow you top-line growth, everybody and his grandmother will know to buythe stock,'" Albertson said.

That is an attitude Albertson said is changing among analysts.

Iomega's percentage of institutional ownership -- shares purchased bymutual fund operators, as well as other large investors -- is more than23 percent, more than four times what it was little more than a year ago.

"The institutions -- the smart-money, the big-money guys -- understandit," he said. "They're buying into it while it's low."

Dunn, who was publicly criticized recently by an industry analyst,responded to questions regarding charges that he and Iomega's board ofdirectors handcuff their CEO and hamper the trading of company stock byfailing to provide adequate guidance on earnings expectations.

The analyst also criticized Dunn, who has been an Iomega director since1980, for the recent sale of 623,000 shares of his personal holdings ofcompany stock.

Dunn refused to say why he made the stock sale, but pointed out that hestill personally holds some 24 million Iomega shares, and that the salerepresented approximately 5 percent of his Iomega holdings.

He said charges that his personal stock sale was contrary to corporatewell being were "absolute nonsense."

As for the board's refusal to provide greater mid-reporting-periodguidance to individual investors and analysts, Dunn pleaded guilty ascharged, saying that the board intended to promise only exactly thosefinancial results it could deliver.

Albertson said on the record that he did not feel handcuffed by Dunn orthe board, but if he did, it would not likely be public knowledge.

"If I really felt handcuffed, I would tell my chairman," he said. "Andthat's where it would end. My style is that if I had that issue, I wouldtell David and the board, myself -- and probably would leave it there."

Albertson also fielded questions regarding the pending settlement of aclass-action lawsuit against Iomega.

The suit charged that some of Iomega's Zip drives and disks containeddesign or manufacturing defects that led to a persistent clicking noiseand the ultimate failure of the products.

The settlement, while not acknowledging any merit in the charges, callsfor rebates of $ 5 to $ 40 on future purchases of Iomega products to some28 million potential class members.

Albertson said the company continues to strongly deny any problem withZip products, but the amount of staff time and corporate resources neededto continue to defend the suit prompted the company to settle.

The marketing of Iomega's recently expanded line of products was anothersubject of concern for some shareholders present.

Iomega's executive vice president of marketing and product management,Doug Collier, said the company is seeking to leverage the company'sflagship product line, Zip drives and disks.

He said Zip products have been well marketed to "early adopters,"consumers who tend to stay on or near the cutting edge of new technology.

However, Collier said the company needs to more effectively market tobroader groups of customers.

"The whole secret of marketing on Zip, is to get a targeted message anddeliver it to targeted audiences," Collier said.

"Because what we're not going to do is spend tens of millions of dollarson doing these broad national campaigns, that you really don't have anopportunity to deliver a direct message through."

Iomega is putting its products in new retail markets where a broader baseof computer users can be found, like Wal-Mart and Kmart stores.

"I think it's safe to say that, in general, the Wal-Mart audience wouldnot be the classified as the earliest-adopting part of the population,but they deal with computers," Collier said. "Sixty percent of U.S.households have computers, so computer owners are shopping Wal-Mart. Byhaving our products there at affordable price points, we can startpenetrating that market a little more effectively." (Standard-Examiner,May 3, 2001)

NATIONAL LIFE: Contests Suits over Conversion to Mutual Holding Company-----------------------------------------------------------------------In late 1999, two lawsuits were filed against National Life and the Stateof Vermont in Vermont related to National Life's conversion to a mutualholding company structure. National Life and the State of Vermontspecifically deny any wrongdoing and intend to defend these casesvigorously. In the opinion of National Life's management, based on advicefrom legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will nothave a material effect on National Life's financial position. However,liabilities related to these lawsuits could be established in the nearterm if estimates of the ultimate resolution of these proceedings arerevised.

NATIONAL LIFE: Expects No Material Effect of Settled Suits re Policies----------------------------------------------------------------------During 1997, several class action lawsuits were filed against NationalLife in various states related to the sale of life insurance policiesduring the 1980's and 1990's. National Life specifically denied anywrongdoing. National Life agreed to a settlement of these class actionlawsuits in June 1998. This agreement was subsequently approved by thecourt in October 1998. The settlement provides class members with variouspolicy enhancement options and new product purchase discounts. Classmembers may instead pursue alternative dispute resolution according topredetermined guidelines. Qualifying members may also opt out of theclass action and pursue litigation separately against National Life. Mostof the alternative dispute resolution cases were settled by December 31,1999. Management believes that while the ultimate cost of this litigation(including those opting out of the class action) is still uncertain, itis unlikely, after considering existing provisions, to have a materialadverse effect on National Life's financial position.

NGK METALS: 'Informal Interviews' In Class Action Limited---------------------------------------------------------Ethics rules prohibit a defense lawyer from conducting "informalinterviews" with potential witnesses in a personal-injury action, whenthe witnesses are also putative plaintiffs in a proposed class actionsuit involving the same alleged tortious conduct, without first gettingthe consent of the class action lawyer, a federal judge has ruled.

In his nine-page opinion in Dondore v. NGK Metals Corp., U.S. DistrictJudge Harvey Bartle III found that Rule 4.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules ofProfessional Conduct extends to all members of a class action -- evenbefore the class is certified.

Until the issue of class certification is decided, Judge Bartle said, thelawyers must be restrained in their communications with the putativeclass members.

Judge Bartle is presiding over two individual personal-injury suitsbrought by Berks County, Pa., residents who claim they suffer from"chronic beryllium disease" as a result of living near a beryllium metalmanufacturing facility in the Reading area. (The National Law Journal,April 30, 2001)

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENT: Admits Error in Math on Safety Level of Nickel-------------------------------------------------------------------In a stunning admission of error, the Ontario environment ministry isredoing the math on the safety of the level it's established for nickelexposure in Port Colborne.

An embarrassed ministry official said that a calculation error has beendiscovered in one of the tests it did before deciding that the city's19,000 residents can safely be exposed to 10,000 parts per million ofnickel compounds in soil. "We're hoping we're seen as objective and we'reseen as credible, and that's a challenge when this mistake is made,"admitted Jim Smith, director of the ministry's standards developmentbranch.

The test calculates the nickel's bio-availability - whether it could beabsorbed by a person who ingests it.

"I'm not too impressed," Mayor Vance Badawey commented after beinginformed of the error.

The calculation of the so-called "intervention level" is part of a300-page report the ministry released March 30, which was the basis of anorder that nickel giant Inco Ltd. clean up 16 properties in the highlycontaminated Rodney St. neighbourhood next to its 90-year-old refinery.

Smith would not say how long it will take to revise the report, but afrustrated Badawey said he was told it could take six months.

"That's not acceptable," Badawey said, noting the city has been workingwith the ministry and Inco on a remediation plan for more than a year.

"We would expect to have those results in hand within weeks, not months."

The error does not affect the prospects of the 16 homeowners who are thesubject of the order.

Inco announced at its annual general meeting last week that it wouldvoluntarily clean up the properties, despite reservations about theconclusions of parts of the report.

Now, said lawyer Eric Gillespie, acting on behalf of a group of cityresidents in a class action suit, more properties may be included in theorder.

"If it turns out that the errors in the calculation lower the exposurelevel from 10,000 (ppm) to 7,000 or 5,000, there are definitely otherproperties that would be included."

The public comment period on the order ended Sunday. Criticisms in thefour responses that were received will be evaluated as part of therevision of the study, Smith said.

Inco raised some questions about methodology, said Alan Stubbs, thecompany's vice-president of government and public affairs.

Stubbs said Inco will wait to see the revised study before elaborating onits concerns.

Dr. Mark Richardson, an Ottawa risk assessment expert, sent the ministrya seven-page report criticizing the study and its conclusion that 10,000ppm is a reasonable guideline.

He points out an error in the method used to calculate bio-availabilityand a "critical flaw" in the methodology used to simulate gastricsolubility. (The Toronto Star, May 3, 2001)

RITE AID: Fd Judge Refuses to Disqualify Himself Or Lead Defense Lawyers------------------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge has refused to disqualify either himself or the leaddefense lawyers in a class action against Rite Aid Corp., rejecting theclaims of former CEO Martin Grass, who said the judge and his formerlawyers held ex parte meetings in which they engineered a settlement thatleaves him out in the cold with no insurance coverage. U.S. DistrictJudge Stewart Daizell found that neither he nor attorney Alan J. Davis ofBallard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll did anything unethical by meeting withplaintiffs' lawyers and negotiating the $ 200 million settlement -- eventhough none of the other defendants was invited. In re Rite Aid,MDL-1360. (The National Law Journal, April 30, 2001)

The suit alleges that Sears charged customers for AccuBalance balancingservices from May 1989 to April 1994 but, in many instances, did notperform the service. An estimated 7 million to 30 million customers paid$ 12.50 per tire for the services.

Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian certified the class on Thursday andscheduled a hearing on May 29 to determine how best to notify classmembers. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 3, 2001)

According to the complaint, Mr. Bart's firm, New Orleans' Morris Bart,broadcast television ads claiming that for those who had purchasedMassMutual life insurance policies "there are deadlines rapidlyapproaching and you may be entitled to money damages" and that also "youmay be entitled to a cash award." The complaint alleges that thestatements interfered with insurance company business and prejudiced itscontractual relationships.

Mr. Bart says that he stands behind his ads and that the firm isinvestigating whether there were any staff misstatements to callers.

The underlying litigation involved the sale of so-called "vanishingpremium" policies; Mr. Bart's firm is handling hundreds of plaintiffs whoopted out of class actions.

VENTRO CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Debt Instruments Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it filed a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California on behalf of all purchasers of Ventro Corporation("VENTRO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: VNTR) publicly traded debtinstruments during the period between March 29, 2000 and December 6,2000, inclusive (the "Class Period") against Ventro, certain of itsofficers and directors, and certain of its underwriters.

The case name and index number are Sunshine Wire and Cable DefinedBenefit Pension Plan Trust DTD 01/01/92 v. Ventro (01-1713 BZ), and isbefore Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. A copy of the complaint filedin this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the WolfHaldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at http://www.whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securitieslaws by issuing inaccurate and misleading materials, including aRegistration Statement and Prospectus, for its offering of convertiblesubordinated notes.

Ventro Corporation is a builder and operator of business-to-businesse-commerce marketplace companies. The complaint alleges that during theClass Period, it was evident to defendants that Ventro did not possessthe technology to successfully compete as a marketplace. Defendants knewthis would severely impair Ventro's future revenue growth but wanted toraise additional money through debt offerings before the bottom fell outof Ventro's stock price. Thus, defendants continued to make positive butfalse statements about Ventro's business and future revenues whileissuing $250 million worth of convertible subordinated notes. Thecomplaint further alleges that on December 6, 2000, Ventro announced arestructuring in which it closed down two out of three of its main B2Bmarketplaces. In early 2001, it was revealed that defendants had realizedby December 1999 that Ventro's business model of independent marketplacesdidn't make sense and that even Ventro's partners were not satisfied withVentro's technology for operating the marketplaces. By this time,Ventro's stock and debt instruments had declined precipitously,inflicting billions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the Class.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to bereliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for theterm of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. Forsubscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.